Brand new genetic study on the origins of Huns, Avars and Hungarian Conquerors

[Turul Karom]

Edit: double post from TA host crash. Have a video!

[Turul Karom]

There is no conspiracy going on, but simply I forgot to quote that small last paragraph, happens with all of us. What I quoted otherwise already makes that last quote self-explanatory so nyugi

This picture from the study demonstrates better and with more nuance that there is no magical "Mansi" core. Common early ancestry does not make common for all. Hungarians were not Mansi or Khanty but have earlier genetic ties. This picture shows the Asian Conquerors moving into the Carpathian basin separate from the now ethnically distinct Mansi.



Also I hate how often TA host crashes. Very frustrating.

[Dunai]

This picture from the study demonstrates better and with more nuance that there is no magical "Mansi" core. Common early ancestry does not make common for all. Hungarians were not Mansi or Khanty but have earlier genetic ties. This picture shows the Asian Conquerors moving into the Carpathian basin separate from the now ethnically distinct Mansi.



Also I hate how often TA host crashes. Very frustrating.

Hope you didn't forget to read this paragraph before you so vehemently try to deny the close Hungarian Conqueror-Mansi connection:

"Admixture f3-statistics indicated that the main admixture sources of Conq_Asia_Core1 were Steppe_MLBA populations and ancestors of modern Nganasans. Outgroup f3-statistics revealed that Conq_Asia_Core1 shared highest drift with modern Siberian populations speaking Uralic languages; Nganasan (Samoyedic), Mansi (Ugric), Selkup (Samoyedic) and Enets (Samoyedic), implicating that Conq_Asia_Core shared evolutionary past with language relatives of modern Hungarians. For this reason we co-analyzed Mansis, the closest language relatives of Hungarians with Conq_Asia_Core.
From pre-Iron Age sources Mansis could be qpAdm modelled from 48% Mezhovskaya, 44% Nganasan and 8% Botai19, while Conq_Asia_Core1 from 52%
Mezhovskaya, 13% Nganasan, 20% Altai_MLBA_o13 and 15% Mongolia_LBA_CenterWest_4D15 confirming shared late Bronze Age ancestries of these groups, but also signifying that the Nganasan-like ancestry was largely replaced in Conq_Asia_Core by a Scytho-Siberian-like ancestry including BMAC derived from the Altai-Mongolia region.
From proximal sources Conq_Asia_Core1 could be consistently modelled from 50% Mansi, 35% Early/Late Sarmatian and 15% Scytho-Siberian-outlier/Xiongnu/Hun ancestries, and Conq_Asia_Core2 had comparable models with shifted proportions."

[Karol Klačansky]

so how much ancestry do modern hungarians have from these hungarian conquerors?

[Turul Karom]

Hope you didn't forget to read this paragraph before you so vehemently try to deny the close Hungarian Conqueror-Mansi connection:

"Admixture f3-statistics indicated that the main admixture sources of Conq_Asia_Core1 were Steppe_MLBA populations and ancestors of modern Nganasans. Outgroup f3-statistics revealed that Conq_Asia_Core1 shared highest drift with modern Siberian populations speaking Uralic languages; Nganasan (Samoyedic), Mansi (Ugric), Selkup (Samoyedic) and Enets (Samoyedic), implicating that Conq_Asia_Core shared evolutionary past with language relatives of modern Hungarians. For this reason we co-analyzed Mansis, the closest language relatives of Hungarians with Conq_Asia_Core.
From pre-Iron Age sources Mansis could be qpAdm modelled from 48% Mezhovskaya, 44% Nganasan and 8% Botai19, while Conq_Asia_Core1 from 52%
Mezhovskaya, 13% Nganasan, 20% Altai_MLBA_o13 and 15% Mongolia_LBA_CenterWest_4D15 confirming shared late Bronze Age ancestries of these groups, but also signifying that the Nganasan-like ancestry was largely replaced in Conq_Asia_Core by a Scytho-Siberian-like ancestry including BMAC derived from the Altai-Mongolia region.
From proximal sources Conq_Asia_Core1 could be consistently modelled from 50% Mansi, 35% Early/Late Sarmatian and 15% Scytho-Siberian-outlier/Xiongnu/Hun ancestries, and Conq_Asia_Core2 had comparable models with shifted proportions."

There just isn't a "core" Mansi dominance. I've said since the dawn of my posting on TA that Ugric/Uralic peoples and language especially played a distinct role in Hungarian ethnogenesis. The problem comes when people say that they were the majority group from the start and influenced everything else with Central Asians/Turkics playing negligible roles. Of course these same people then use that theory to round the Turkic contribution from "low" to "zero" because they can't stomach its even marginal presence.

Imagine knowing that Hungarians have entirely Turkic steppe culture, runic alphabet, Tengrist religion, tribal names, bilingualism, and even founding dynasty Y-DNA matching Osman house (R1a-Z93, and not haplogroup N), and thinking, "Hmm, yes, Ugric is clearly dominant here" when even the largest % of Hungarian words are of "unknown" origin, admitted by Uralic-supporter linguists.

[IMG][/IMG]

Again, the Mansi did not "become" the Hungarians. They were distinct, and stayed distinct, contributing genetics and language in-part and not as a whole. There is Uralic contribution to the ethnogenesis with everything else being dominantly Turkic. Pointing out that there was a lot of N in conqueror graves completely ignores the dominance of R1, which was even more present than N. But your conclusion would be that the Mansi N is somehow the core? There were even more R1 in Hunnic graves than N..



What's hilarious is even Hungarian members own results on TA show a higher Turkic than Ugric influence across their genetic results. I score Finno-Ugric Urals and Hun Mongolia on ancient populations to 1000AD test with more Turkic than Uralic %, and my modern populations results contain almost every Turkic group all the way to Uyghurs in %'s greater than 1 each. If modern Hungarians are consistently compared to only modern Ugrics like Khanty and Mansi and not Turkics, then there will always be people scratching their heads and thinking that there is no longer a connection with the conquerors or that it is "negligible" across the country. Include Turkics in the comparison, and the whole origins narrative fits like a perfect puzzle.

[Dunai]

There just isn't a "core" Mansi dominance. I've said since the dawn of my posting on TA that Ugric/Uralic peoples and language especially played a distinct role in Hungarian ethnogenesis. The problem comes when people say that they were the majority group from the start and influenced everything else with Central Asians/Turkics playing negligible roles. Of course these same people then use that theory to round the Turkic contribution from "low" to "zero" because they can't stomach its even marginal presence.

Imagine knowing that Hungarians have entirely Turkic steppe culture, runic alphabet, Tengrist religion, tribal names, bilingualism, and even founding dynasty Y-DNA matching Osman house (R1a-Z93, and not haplogroup N), and thinking, "Hmm, yes, Ugric is clearly dominant here" when even the largest % of Hungarian words are of "unknown" origin, admitted by Uralic-supporter linguists.

[IMG][/IMG]

Again, the Mansi did not "become" the Hungarians. They were distinct, and stayed distinct, contributing genetics and language in-part and not as a whole. There is Uralic contribution to the ethnogenesis with everything else being dominantly Turkic. Pointing out that there was a lot of N in conqueror graves completely ignores the dominance of R1, which was even more present than N. But your conclusion would be that the Mansi N is somehow the core? There were even more R1 in Hunnic graves than N..



What's hilarious is even Hungarian members own results on TA show a higher Turkic than Ugric influence across their genetic results. I score Finno-Ugric Urals and Hun Mongolia on ancient populations to 1000AD test with more Turkic than Uralic %, and my modern populations results contain almost every Turkic group all the way to Uyghurs in %'s greater than 1 each. If modern Hungarians are consistently compared to only modern Ugrics like Khanty and Mansi and not Turkics, then there will always be people scratching their heads and thinking that there is no longer a connection with the conquerors or that it is "negligible" across the country. Include Turkics in the comparison, and the whole origins narrative fits like a perfect puzzle.

Contrary to you I only look at data and forward the conclusions of scientists to the general public who might be interested in the topic of Hungarian origins. I personally couldn't care less if the dominant element in the ethnogenesis of Hungarian Conquerors were Turks or Uralics or Scythians. What I presented so far are the conclusions from the authors themselves, who otherwise try to push the "Hun origins of Hungarians" theory, but even they realized after seeing the hard data that the core Uralic origin of Hungarian Conquerors is clear as daylight. I simply don't understand why do you have to do such mental gymnastics and deny the clear-cut conclusions of these scientists. Our language is also a Uralic language, that's a fact, no matter how difficult for you it is to cope with it.

[Turul Karom]

so how much ancestry do modern hungarians have from these hungarian conquerors?

It varies from Hungarian to Hungarian and what a personal definition of "conqueror ancestry" is, both culturally and genetic. Genetically it is present in most Hungarians (both Asian and European conqueror admixture as the Conquerors were not exclusively East Asians as if they all came from the Chinese coast).

[Blondie]

I never stated that they spoke exclusively Hungarian, but what I said was that even genetics prove without any doubt that they had very-very strong links to the Ugric branch of the Uralic family, with Mansis, just as linguistics showed all along. They even kept relations with their Uralic homeland hundreds of years after moving into the Carpathian Basin. This supposition that the Conqueror came from Central Asia and they were Turkic people doesn't hold any ground in factual reality. They mixed with Central Asian elements but they never lost their Uralic character.

The problem with that:

1. It's not proved that conquerors spoked hungarian, but the greek sources described them turkic, obviously because they were turkic speakers. They called Árpád as king of Turkia and Hungary named as Turkia by them. The byzantine academic world was one of the most advanced in this age, they knew eastern european nomads (turkics) very well, so these sources are the most trustworthy.

2. Medieval sources (Gesta Hungarorum) proves that the modern hungarian language existed in the Carpathian Basin before the conquerors. The Gesta Hungarorum presented very well the political and ethnical relations in the Carpathian Basin at this time. The modern archaeology confirmed many thing what Anonymus said, for example the presence of roman survivors at this time, earlier the historians thought it's impossible until they have found the roman Keszthely culture. Anonymus clearly talked about the hungarus ethnicity who were here before Árpád, they lived in Alföld and Transylvania, and they used such words and topography what came from the hungarian language what hungarians speaks today.

3. If coquerors brought the hungarian language in the Carpathian Basin then how the Carpathian Basin became 80-90% hungarian speaker 100 years later? The number of couquerors were just 20000-60000 people, and the local population was 0,5-1 million. It's impossible that this small elite assimilate millions, and there were no schools or national identity at this time. That's nonsense.

[Dunai]

The problem with that:

1. It's not proved that conquerors spoked hungarian, but the greek sources described them turkic, obviously because they were turkic speakers. They called Árpád as king of Turkia and Hungary named as Turkia by them. The byzantine academic world was one of the most advanced in this age, they knew eastern european nomads (turkics) very well, so these sources are the most trustworthy.

2. Medieval sources (Gesta Hungarorum) proves that the modern hungarian language existed in the Carpathian Basin before the conquerors. The Gesta Hungarorum presented very well the political and ethnical relations in the Carpathian Basin at this time. The modern archaeology confirmed many thing what Anonymus said, for example the presence of roman survivors at this time, earlier the historians thought it's impossible until they have found the roman Keszthely culture. Anonymus clearly talked about the hungarus ethnicity who were here before Árpád, they lived in Alföld and Transylvania, and they used such words and topography what came from the hungarian language what hungarians speaks today.

3. If coquerors brought the hungarian language in the Carpathian Basin then how the Carpathian Basin became 80-90% hungarian speaker 100 years later? The number of couquerors were just 20000-60000 people, and the local population was 0,5-1 million. It's impossible that this small elite assimilate millions, and there were no schools or national identity at this time. That's nonsense.

No serious academic believes that the Hungarian language didn't arrive into the Carpathian Basin together with the Conquerors. There is no other candidate population that prior could have brought it here, except them. All fields of science point to Conquerors as the obvious candidate for bringing Hungarian here. Also it is not unheard of at all that small populations can assimilate much larger ones. Look at how few Spanish colonizers managed to linguistically assimilate large parts of the Americas.

[Turul Karom]

Contrary to you I only look at data and forward the conclusions of scientists to the general public who might be interested in the topic of Hungarian origins. I personally couldn't care less if the dominant element in the ethnogenesis of Hungarian Conquerors were Turks or Uralics or Scythians. What I presented so far are the conclusions from the authors themselves, who otherwise try to push the "Hun origins of Hungarians" theory, but even they realized after seeing the hard data that the core Uralic origin of Hungarian Conquerors is clear as daylight. I simply don't understand why do you have to do such mental gymnastics and deny the clear-cut conclusions of these scientists. Our language is also a Uralic language, that's a fact, no matter how difficult for you it is to cope with it.

Way to address the points I posted. Imagine reading my post and just saying "mental gymnastics" as though it didn't debunk your entire framing.

Oh, and the reason you had to make what you wrote in post #4 in this thread is because you need to frame it yourself because the written conclusions are not what you perceive. Even their map explains it differently.

Conquerors had more R1 than N. Conquerors had more Turkic than Ugric (I love how they need to call it Uralic now and not Finno-Ugric) cultural and genetic origins and were even bilingual, which is well documented. You're the one who will need to deal with what I posted above. No matter how much you hate it, the founding dynasty will never be Ugric but Turkic and R1.